|
|
|
include("inserts/navigation_upper.htm"); ?>
|
.
.
with comments by David Bruce
|
| I
receive a lot of e-mail. I am not able to post all the mail. I have
included a good sampling, however. If the subject is the same I might
group the newer messages with similar older ones. Also, my response
may appear a few days after the original posting. I can't do HJ everyday.
You must include your "name" and e-mail address within your comment
if you want it posted, otherwise it will not be posted (there is a privacy
issue here and we respect that). I do, however, encourage you to give
your "name" and e-mail so others can respond to you personally.
|
|
E-mail and Comments:
|
|
This
page was last updated on July 18, 2001
|
|
EYES?
Subject: O_Brother_Where_Art_Thou
Date: 6 Jul 2001
From: Ethan efro21@icqmail.com
Great movie--Anyone
have any idea what the significance the eyes have in this movie? There
must be at least five characters with unusual eyes; either blind, or missing
one, or wearing sunglasses. It has been a while since I've read the Odyssey.
Are these all classical references to Homer? Or is there a good spiritual
reason for giving the characters different eye conditions?
Feel free to post my e-mail address:
efro21@icqmail.com
Ethan <>
|
|
COOL
CHURCHES
Subject: Park Community Church Newsletter_26
Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2001
From: stephanie
Although I can't speak
for where the church would stand on R-rated movies. I do have to say that
I have found a church (the first one in my 30 years of attendance) that
truly respects the faith journey process, no matter where you are. They
are a bible teaching place that respects and welcomes people that are
all along the continuum (atheist, agnostic, believer). The church is in
downtown Chicago and it is called Park Community Church www.parkcommunitychurch.org
Many blessings and
keep up the good work, I find your site refreshing and a wonderful way
to witness to others who share my love for movies Stephanie Ricke This
message is for the designated recipient only and may contain privileged
or confidential information. If you have received it in error, please
notify the sender immediately and delete the original. Any other use of
the email by you is prohibited.
|
|
COMMENTS
ON A.I.
IT
GOT TO ME
Subject: AI AI_Artificial_Intelligence
Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2001
From: David Morrissey
Even though the story
seemed to fade towards the end, I still enjoyed AI very much and (as all
great movies do) it got me to think. The most amazing thing about the
movie was how it looked. Even if you hated the story, you couldn't deny
that Speilberg did an excellent job of making the screen look magical.
Beyond that, I thought the story did a couple things to expand my imagination.
First of all, the
movie, because it takes place far in the future and goes even farther
by the end, it really expanded my belief of how big God really is. I was
truly humbled when I realized that God is so much bigger than my life,
than David's life, and than the years and years that pass in the story.
The second reason
I liked it is because of how real and personal it made our quest (as humans)
for "higher meaning". Joe and David even bring it up in the movie. I thought
it amazing that even as a robot, David's only goal was unconditional love.
The thought of that made God's gift of grace also so much more amazing.
AI is a great movie
for anyone who enjoys sci-fi and a great discussion starter too.
David Morrissey
Youth Pastor
Waukeenah, FL
DIDN'T
CARE MUCH FOR THE MOVIE
Subject: AI_Artificial_Intelligence
Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2001
From: "Daniel Baer"
Dear David, This letter
is my two cents worth regarding A.I.
In a nutshell, I didn't
much care for the movie. "In-this-world" science fiction (as opposed to
fantasy science fiction) should have the feel of plausibility to it. A.I.
stumbles on this count in various ways.
For example, the emotion/logic
dichotomy introduced in the film--wherein the old-style robots have logical
minds but not emotional ones--seems artificial. Scientists who are studying
A.I. know that if a machine were to develop consciousness it would have
to be of quite a different quality than the "deep blue" machines which
play chess so well. Deep-blue type machines are logical but have no consciousness.
Humans who play chess well (and lets not forget that grand masters still
more often than not beat the chess machines) solve chess problems in an
entirely different manner from that of the deep-blue type machine. Deep
blues "think" through billions of possibilities; humans seem to leap over
most and concentrate on those relatively few possibilities which show
the most promise (this is called solving the framework problem). Merely
increasing a computer's speed or the number of possibilities which it
can think of per second will not bring about consciousness. Spielberg,
though, seems to believe the idea that conscious-attaining machines will
follow after some point in the progression of computers of today--that
is, after they have attained a certain amount of computational power.
Hence, he arrives at the conclusion that these first machines will be
logical but not emotional. Also, even if machines were to have logical
but not emotional consciousness--it is doubtful that such machines would
do humans much good in their day-to-day tasks. An analogous situation
is the genie who keeps on getting the wishes wrong of his master--because
he doesn't understand his master's intent. A computer without emotion
would be extremely user-unfriendly because it would have no idea of what
its master's intent was unless its master expressed this intent in an
extremely cumbersome, technical jargon (i.e., computer programmer's jargon).
Other problems: How
is it that Monica can be resurrected for one day only? In the hard sciences,
constants generally are vanishingly small or of astronomical proportions
(think Avogadro's number). The idea that there exists a constant in the
space-time continuum of "from sun-up to sun-down" somehow rings on the
contrived side.
Also, if David imprinted
onto Monica, why couldn't the robots of 2,000 years into the future simply
create a simulation of Monica which would make David happy? Obviously
David didn't imprint onto Monica's personality--the imprinting process
occurred only after Monica said five words--therefore, the imprinting
must have involved Monica's looks, her voice, or her handprint (she was
holding David behind the neck). These things could easily be duplicated
by the futuristic robots (with or without a strand of hair).
Also, why do Professor
Hobby's speeches to David just so happen to explain so much and also advance
the plot along. Again, things seem contrived. I found it difficult to
believe that the speeches just happened as opposed to being "set up" by
Spielberg to move the story to the next plot point. Also, what about the
manner in which David's memories show up on the futuristic robots' faces?
Never mind that today we have computers which have screens that fit right
in front of one's eyes--2,000 years in the future they'll still have full-facial
screens. This wouldn't have anything to do with Spielberg attempting to
"show not tell" something, would it?
Sincerely, Daniel Baer
THOUGHTS
Subject: ai AI_Artificial_Intelligence
Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2001
From: Ken Tunnell
Greetings David,
I've been visiting your website for years now and thank you for the work.
Our views on Christianity and movies are generally similar (to give you
a real quick sketch of where I'm coming from I'll use our common language
and tell you my five favorite films - The Matrix;
BladeRunner; Chariots of Fire; MP's Holy
Grail & Life of Brian and I trust The
Lord of the Rings Trilogy will usurp something from this list); but,
we are far apart on AI. I left the theater feeling the film had several
serious flaws - and upon further reflection have divided these into plot
and message.
First, the more mundane
area of plot. That the father would be so involved in the beginning and
then fade away for no apparent reason was troublesome. I found it quite
odd that the mother would imprint alone - I saw this as a spiritual scene
also, but more reminiscent of Eve's Temptation and Fall in wanting to
be like God (by creating a being to love her outside of the natural order).
Interesting that in the Fall story, Eve is also alone (some have indicated
that this reveals the male's primary sin of disattachment, of not engaging
- but that's a different topic all together). And again at the abandonement,
father is remote and absent. The death of Joe's regular customer just
seems a quick and dirty method to move Joe into the escape story (OK,
so Moses killed and that's why he fled too - but in the film it just seems
to come out of nowhere, better to have Joe kill a human who was abusing
someone). At the Flesh Fair I saw the turning of the audience against
the "prophet" as utterly unrealistic - if these were truly rebelling against
artificiality, then David should have been the epitomy of anethema. That
he escapes so easily does not ring true (as for the baby Jesus imagery,
it would have been much more true to have him pursued - Herod certainly
did). It is the triumph of appearance over substance, but I'm getting
into the message part. So, they find the place where the lions weep in
a wasteland, but lo, this is a highly sophicticated assembly plant for
mechas. Where's the infrastructure? Who in their right mind would do this
here? The Cain/Abel scene seemed gratuitous and just furthered ambivalent
feelings towards David. If the creator wanted him to come home (seemingly
of his own free will - "we gave you just enough information"), why did
they just let him escape? Where did they go? It seemed inevitable that
we would have the creator/being conflict ala Frankenstien or BladeRunner.
But no, the creator just disappears. How can spinach totally inactivate
him but freezing salt water is no problem? Why do the cops show up and
only take Joe? What the heck does he mean by saying "I AM, I WAS" as he
ascends? Is Joe the Christ figure, leaving David to sort it all out? I
just found myself repeatedly thinking, this makes no sense. Yes, it's
a fairy tale, but they especially need to make sense on the mundane level
or the message is further diluted.
Hmm, quite a rant
it seems. Now on to the message part. In the beginning scene, a colleague
of the creator asks if this is an ethical issue, and they all seem to
be amused by it - as if some reference to the world being flat has just
been made. So, David is set out for a test run by the creator - with seemingly
little preparation for the real world and no further guidance by the creator.
It seems that all you need is love. David is cast out of his own garden
of Eden and left to make his way in the fallen world. To help him we get
two creatures who are admittedly less than he is. He finds his creator
only to realize that David's purpose is to be just a cog in the industrial
machine (he is not unique) so it's escape once more. He prays to his God
for two thousand years and when he finally gets to touch his God archetype,
it is hollow and crumbles. So, he settles for the appearance, the facsimile
of his Garden of Eden, his paradise. The triumph of appearance over substance.
This film left me with a very hopeless materialism - and if God or anything
supernatural exists it is either uninvolved or just in it for fun and
profit (I wonder if this is why the creato's name is "Hobby").
I agree that the film
is technically a treat, but I found the plot devices to be very weak and
the message quite in contrast to the Christian worldview. In your review,
you state that, "Again, in a very real sense, the film is about the search
for true humanity, love and God." If this is so, then the film would seem
to say, none of it exists - so the best you can do is just settle for
your own little dream. Realize that this is a quick lunch-break review,
so if there's anything that doesn't make sense or seems undeveloped, please
ask me to clarify.
Under The Mercy,
Ken Tunnell
|
|
SEXY
JESUS
Subject: JesusMiniSeries
Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2001
From: viviena
hi! i'm from Malaysia,
an islamic country in the far east and i saw this miniseries in DVD.
it is a very interesting
story. it makes me laugh & cry at the same time and also love the fact
that there are two women in love with jesus (mary magdalene's affections
is truly transparent).
bravo to jeremy sisto
for his sexiness in the epic. thanks
|
|
PART
2
Subject: Rosemarys Baby
Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2001
From: georgie141@webtv.net (Georgie
Osborne)
I LOVED PART 1 OF
ROSEMARY'S BABY I EVEN OWN IT, BUT NOW I'M LOOKING FOR PART 2 :LOOK WHAT
HAPPEN TO ROSEMARY'S BABY IF ANYONE KNOWS WHERE I CAN FIND IT PLEASE E-MAIL
ME AT GEORGIE141@WEBTV.NET
Response:
There is no part 2, that I know of. -David
|
|
MY
THOUGHTS
Subject: Final Fantasy
Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2001
From: Kevin Hooper
First things first,
the movie carries a PG-13 rating, not PG as mentioned in the review under
the cast listing. This is due to the violent nature of the film, as well
as some profane phrases which were spackled into the script. Secondly,
seeing as how none of the sequels of the game used any of their predecessors
for back-story and were basically 9 (so far) mostly unrelated games, Brian's
rant about the movie not being based on the games is rather a moot point.
Thirdly, and possibly most important to the theme behind this site, is
the fact that there is about a 99% chance that no pre-meditated Christian
influence went into the screenplay for this movie. That does not say,
however, that you cannot get something out of this movie that is relevant
to our daily effort to walk with God. (This from a guy who once used Monty
Python's "Dead parrot" skit for a group devotion). I am a huge fan of
the games, and have noticed that, in all of the games, no matter how powerful
the enemy, or how hopeless the situation, the Heroes always come out on
top. Otherwise, how could you beat the game? Many times, the heroes cannot
make it on their own, & have to put their faith in other things that were
once strange to them, whether it is Espers, Gardian Forces, or whatever.
Kind of familiar, don't you think? Many christians still cannot explain
alot about their faith, & noone here on earth can ever know everything
about God, yet we put our faith in Him, and through Him, we overcome obstacles
that are much bigger than ourselves. Expect the same type of parrallel
in the movie. Thank you for your time.
-Kevin Hooper
|
|
VERTICAL
LIMITS AND CHRISTIAN DISCIPLESHIP
Subject: Vertical Limits
Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2001
From: Helen
I can see Vertical
Limit as almost a modern-day parable of Luke 10:1-11, when Jesus sends
out folks in pairs to do his work, with nothing extra.
In Vertical Limit,
the rescue team has to work in pairs. We need to do this (but often don't)
as Christian Disciples.
In Vertical Limit,
rescuers could only take what they could easily carry. In Luke 10, Jesus
tells the disciples to take very little. And today, we should not take
"baggage" with us as Christian Disciples.
In Vertical Limit,
the head of the rescue team puts pairs together not by how comfortable
they are with each other, but by pairing a strong climber with a weaker
one. In our Christian Discipleship, we may also be able to get more done
for God's Kingdom by becoming paired in new ways where we can help each
other.
I see lots of parallels
between this movie and bible story. Thanks for your site!
peace- helen+
|
|
INACCURATE
Subject: Pearl Harbor
Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2001
From: Sarah
I enjoy reading your
movie reviews, though I admit I haven't been to your site for about a
month. I was visiting this afternoon, though, and I wanted to let you
know a few things about Pearl Harbor which are inaccurate.
First, in talking
about Roosevelt, you say:
I really appreciated the films portrayal of President Roosevelt in
a wheel chair. It is not the first film to do this, but I think it is
the first film to portray it as a strength. One of the most tremendous
scenes in the film is when Roosevelt is faced with a table full of US
military leaders who have nothing but "can't do" excuses. Roosevelt places
his hands on the sides of his wheelchair and struggles to stand. With
great effort he finally stands on his withered legs, "Don't tell me that
it can not be done." That's great, but that scene never actually happened.
The directors, when
asked, said no, it didn't happen in real life, but "it should have." I
thought the scene was touching, as well, but it's sad that, from now on,
there will be a misconception that it really happened. (Of
course, the scene never actually happened -David)
Second, you say of
the shot of the boys in Hawaii playing baseball as the Japanese planes
flew overhead:
Nobody plays a baseball game this early on a Sunday morning. It's placed
in the film as symbolic of the shift from innocence to devastation. From
Paradise to Paradise lost. It is the Garden of Eden story couched in an
actual historical event.
That's not true. There
were actually boys playing baseball as the planes flew by overhead. It
wasn't an actual game, just boys playing ball. That's one of the few details
of that dat that the film portrayed accurately. Yes, it was early, but
these are children. Children get up and play very early. Can you even
imagine what those boys were thinking? They likely didn't even know what
those planes meant, and 10 minutes later, their world was just shattered.
(Thank you, I did not know there were boys practicing baseball. But, still,
there was no game. The game was symbolic of America's loss of innocense.
Thank you for the info).
You certainly pegged
the sexuality thing on the mark, though. I really was glad that the director
chose to have Rafe and Evylyn not have sex. That's likely the choice they
would have made back then. And I was equally glad to see old-fashioned
values come into play when Evylyn chose to stay with Danny, because he
was the father of her child, rather than return to Rafe.
Anyway, I appreciate
your website, I just wanted to point out a few inaccuracies. (I
appreciate your kind words. Thank you. -David)
|
|
WHO
PLAYED SATAN?
Subject: No Subject Rosemarys Baby
Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2001
From: linda oliver
anyone know who played
satan? the 'official' cast list says 'clay tanner' i've also heard it
was anton lavey, founder of the church of satan (1966), rewarded with
the role for 'technical advice' (?) the truth is out there..........
linda oliver
|
|
BLAIR
WITCH SECRETS
Subject: Update on Blair Witch Secrets BW2
Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2001
From: Scott
My wife posted her
Esrever page a couple of months ago which contains the secrets. We recently
found that if you go to BlairWitch.com, click "search" and type in some
of the words "hidden" in the movie "Seek me no further or" you get to
enter your name on a list of people that have found the secret. If you
enter other words in the search feature such as "bring something back"
I believe you get an extra scene for the movie and a screensaver. I don't
exactly recall since it's been so long since we found this out. Hope this
helps!
Scott
|
|
3
STARS
Subject: Tomb Raider
Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2001
From: Mike
Don't expect too much
form this movie! After seeing The Return of
the Mummy (5 stars), Tomb Raider seem a little too tame and the story
lacked content. I'm a Tomb Raider fan of Lara Croft and enjoy playing
the games. If the producers could have beefed up the special effects and
created longer action scenes it may have reached some of my expectation.
They left out Lara's famous under water scenes and other stunts that are
expected by gamers. The games are better than the movie though I expected
the movie to be better than the games. Also, if the movie left out some
of the provocative scenes (the showers and a few bad words, which are
not in the games) that would have made me feel more comfortable bring
my children to see the movie. I give the movie 3 stars.
|
|
A.I.
COMMENTS
SEEING
WHAT YOU WANT TO SEE
Subject: AI_Artificial_Intelligence
Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2001
From: "Traci"
I am surprised that
there are so many christians who don't recognize something bad when they
see it. Now I like movies as much as the next person maybe a little more.
I like Sci-Fi best of all. I wait and wait for the next good one to come
out. I am not in a rush to like them all though. You have to be espectially
discriminating when it comes to S. F. Don't be fooled by the good feeling
generated by this movie. It is full of hatred of the human race as a whole.
The humans are the bad guys in this movie and the only enlightened and
good beings are artificial intelligence or aliens. I knew from the first
few lines of the movie what I was in for. Humans had destroyed the earth
and caused the polar ice caps to melt. Humans were only out for what they
could get and on there way to decimating themselves which we saw happened
soon enough in the movie. They were nearly all selfish, mean, and violent.
Response:
Actually Traci, there is a great devotion toward humans at the end of
the film and a real search for true humanity and human value throughout
the entire film. To miss this is to miss the intent of the film. There
is a cautionary note about the harmful exploits of humanity toward the
environment, but this should not be read as hatred for humanity.
In terms
of humanity, according to the Bible, "all have sinned... there are
none righteous." It is human rebellion that brings the apocalypse
(as in the movie). The Bible also teaches that God's wrath will be poured
out on humanity. Do you see the Bible as filled with "hatred of the
human race" because of these statements? By the way Traci, there
are no aliens in the film. Those "aliens" represent the works
of humanity. According to scriptures, after the "end of the world"
(as in the movie) humanity will be judged by their works (as in the movie).
Spielberg personifies our works as Mechas. I think, Traci, you are confusing
your political views with biblical teaching. -David
HOPE
Subject: AI_Artificial_Intelligence
Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2001
From: Mark
Paul said, "The key
to a righteous life is to believe in hope." David was the only character
to have hope, and hope in something more powerful than man or machine.
And he was rewarded." A wonderful film.
PROFOUND
SPIRITUALITY IN UNLIKELY PLACES
Subject: AI_Artificial_Intelligence
Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2001
From: Michael Franz
While other "Christian"
reviewers seem to do nothing but complain about the number of "f"-words
in a movie, you always seem to find profound spiritual meaning in the
most unlikely of places. It's people like you that restore my faith, not
just in God, but in humanity. There's a review of AI from another Christian
site that is much like your own. I think you might find it interesting.
It's at http://promontoryartists.org/lookingcloser/ai.htm.
I've never seen such a comprehensive and deep look at ANY movie before.
Check it out!
Michael Franz
rick_summon@yahoo.com
Response:
Thanks for the good words.
LOVED
IT!
Subject: AI
Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2001
From: "Hiawatha Bray"
The bad reviews for
this movie leave me mystified. I think it's the best SF film in years,
and one of the best movies Spielberg has ever made.
Hiawatha Bray
Technology Reporter
Boston Globe
Response:
Absolutely. This is an amazing film. Critics should take a second look
at this important film. There is nothing else like it. -David
|
|
RESURRECTION
Subject: Robo Cop
Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2001
From: "Can Nakkas"
Just a few thoughts
on the RoboCop-Christ comparison:
1) According to the
Mediabreak clip in the beginning, 31 cops were murdered, then the severely
wounded Fredrickson dies, too. So when Murphy dies that makes him victim
number 33. Christ was 33 when he was crucified (at least according to
Christian lore). And just like Christ was resurrected, Murphy comes back
to life as RoboCop.
2) If you look at
Murphy's first name, it's Alex. One could interpret this as a Greek-Roman
composite , a-lex, i.e. "no law". Christ came to liberate us from the
law (cf. Letter to the Romans).
|
|
JUST
THE BEGINNING
Subject: Final_Fantasy
Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2001
From: ictnet
Is not easy to speak
about a film not yet aired. But my feelings are that this fila, as 7th
art, will be among the good ones. Because the acting, the script, the
story, the sound. and not because the actors are computer generated. This
will be the success for this film.
I'm really waiting
to see it. The trailer is exciting and full of promises. I hope those
promises will become true too.
|
|
COOL
CHURCH WANNABEE
Subject: Fort White UMC Newsletter #26
Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2001
From: "Jeff Peppers"
David, Your story
of your encounter with some narrow-minded Christians was quite enlightening.
As a word of personal encouragement to you, David, let me encourage you
not to fall into the same trap of
I pastor a small United
Methodist Church in a rural part of North Florida (Lower Georgia, really)
-- not exactly a bustling cosmopolitan arts pool. We show movies to 15
to 20 teenagers on Friday nights (in fact, they should start arriving
here in about 90 minutes). We don't show only G or PG movies. In fact,
most are rated R or PG-13. [Note: if they're rated R because of sexual
stuff or excessive profanity, we don't watch it.]
But we don't just
view these movies for entertainment. From your reviews and other websites,
I assemble discussion questions, and we all read the applicable scriptures
together out of our pew Bibles, and then we discuss the Biblical concept.Usually
we do the Bible lesson first, then watch the movie, then (when they're
tired and sleepy-eyed) we look for the illustrations. Almost always, they
identify the scenes we had in mind, and sometimes go a little further.
Then we go have ice cream or something in the fellowship hall.
having said that,
I can understand the views of others who might not be as open minded as
we are. Your reference to defilement coming out versus going in was perhaps
out of context. Certainly, the other party could have responded with references
that about where your heart is, about our call to meditate on the word
of God, and whatsoever things are of good report... You get what I'm saying,
I'm sure, David. There is an ad on our local Christian radio station,
goes something like this: "Man, that garden just won't grow. I tilled,
fertilized, water it. But all I get is weeds." "What seeds did you use?"
"Seeds?" Jesus said, if your eye makes you sin, pluck it out; it's better
to be blind than to burn."
So I guess I'm middle
of the road. To some, a flaming liberal who allows trash into the minds
of formative kids and calls it gospel. To others, a narrow minded fundamentalist
advocating long dresses and no makeup.
Interested to know
your take, if you have time. God bless you in your vital ministry, David.
Jeff Peppers
Pastor, Fort White UMC
Fort White, Florida
Response:
Teaching youth how to think, react and most importantly dialogue with
the world around them is a valuable gift. Keep on doing what you are doing.
Jesus took his disciples into the world to train them. Today we isolate
them from the world.
|
|
TV
IS BIGGER THAN GOVERNMENTS
Subject: Truman Show
Date: Sun, 1 Jul 2001
From: Thomas
Much has been said
of the movies' religious themes: (I think it is a negatvie comment on
faith in the Christ). But, what about T.V. Come on. T.V. has taken over
the world for the last 30 years. People want to watch others live and
will all go along with the deception and not even world governments are
as strong as Television. True, there is a vocal minority (as is stated
in the movie) but materialism conquers even even faith in the Christ and
eventually death is the only way out according to the movie. Lot's -o-
stuff in the film
--thanks. Thomas
|
|
|
You
are on Comments page 93
|
Index
to all the comments May 03 to Sep 12, 2001
|
For
more recent comments click here
Go to page 109 Sep 08-12, 2001
Go to page 108 Sep 01-07, 2001
Go to page 107 Aug 30-31, 2001
Go to page 106 Aug 26-29, 2001
Go to page 105 Aug 24-25, 2001
Go to page 104 Aug 21-23, 2001
Go to page 103 Aug 18-20, 2001
Go to page 102 Aug 12-17, 2001
Go to page 101 Aug 07-11, 2001
Go to page 100 Aug 03-06, 2001
Go to page 99 Aug 01-02, 2001
Go to page 98 July31, continued
Go to page 97 July28-31, 2001
Go to page 96 July 20-27 2001
Go to page 95 July16-19, 2001
Go to page 94 July 07-15, 2001
Go to page 93 July
01-06, 2001
Go to page 92 June 23-30, 2001
Go to page 91 June 20-22, 2001 |
Go
to page 90 June 15-19, 2001
Go to page 89 June 13-14, 2001
Go to page 88 June 12, coninued
Go to page 87 June 11-12, 2001
Go to page 86 June 11, coninued
Go to page 85 June 11, 2001
Go to page 84 June 10, coninued
Go to page 83 June 10, coninued
Go to page 82 June 09-10, 2001
Go to page 81 June 03-08, 2001
Go to page 80 June 01-03, 2001
Go to page 79 May 29-31, 2001
Go to page 78 May 24-28, 2001
Go to page 77 May 22-23, 2001
Go to page 76 May 22 coninued
Go to page 75 May 12-21, 2001
Go to page 74 May 06-11, 2001
Go to page 73 May 03-05, 2001
For earlier comments click here
|
|
Your
Comments.
Post your thoughts for all to read.
Please include your "name." I will not post your e-mail
address unless you want me to.
CLICK HERE
Comments_E-mail
Your
Private Comments.
I will not post these comments. What are your personal
thoughts? I also welcome your spiritual concerns and prayer needs.
I will correspond with you, usually within two weeks.
CLICK HERE
Private_Comments_E-mail
Hollywood
Jesus News Letter
Receive the Hollywood Jesus Newsletter FREE.
Sign up here
|
|
| |
|
|